posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 09:13 PM
The OP has already stated that they distinguish between knowledge and belief, and that should no quake occur, they will admit that their
theory/prediction/interpretation/belief was incorrect.
Citing factual fallacy is one thing, as is genuinely trying to enlighten or educate someone in a respectful and cooperative fashion, out of the
desire to help that person. Crossing the line from that to telling someone to denounce a personal belief or conviction (especially when that
individual distinguishes between that belief and knowledge; i.e. they acknowledge that their belief could easily be wrong) is something all together
different, in my opinion, and serves neither the goal of enlightenment nor the motive of helping that person. All it does it provide an ego boost.
People have the right to believe what they wish, and to do so without condemnation, when they acknowledge the difference between belief and empirical
fact, and accept that their belief might be wrong. The OP has done this repeatedly. Once someone does that – and the OP has – then any further
attempt to attack their belief has only one possible motive and goal: to convince them that they are wrong.
Beliefs stated as facts can be condemned as being factually wrong; personal beliefs are just that – personal – and should be respected and
tolerated regardless of factual fallacy because they are not cited as facts but as personal beliefs and/or theories, in my view. The OP has not cited
their beliefs as empirical facts, but rather as what they are; beliefs and/or suspicions. Thus debating them further is akin to debating someone’s
religious or philosophical beliefs.
The web bot having predicted quakes successfully on the other hand is debatable, because it cannot be proved unequivocally that it predicted
anything, since the possibility of pure coincidence has not been ruled out. When the OP states that the web bot did definitely predict quakes in the
past, I would suggest that it instead be framed purely as an opinion or a belief, as this latest prediction/interpretation was.
I’m saying all of this as an open minded skeptic, mind you. It is possible that web bot has predicted quakes successfully in the past. It’s
just also possible that its seeming predictions were coincidences.
That’s all beside the point I’m trying to make, however, which is that little is served – in my opinion – by trying to persuade someone that
what they have demonstrated is merely a personal belief – not a factual claim – is wrong.